Cooley v. Board of Wardens
E276816
Commerce Clause case
United States Supreme Court case
constitutional law case
landmark United States Supreme Court case
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Cooley v. Board of Wardens canonical | 4 |
| Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2538919 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Cooley v. Board of Wardens Context triple: [Roger B. Taney Court, notableCase, Cooley v. Board of Wardens]
-
A.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
B.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
C.
Barron v. Baltimore
Barron v. Baltimore is an 1833 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government, not the states.
-
D.
Cohens v. Virginia
Cohens v. Virginia is an 1821 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed the Court’s authority to review state criminal proceedings involving federal law, strengthening federal judicial power over the states.
-
E.
Prigg v. Pennsylvania
Prigg v. Pennsylvania was an 1842 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal supremacy over state laws in enforcing the return of escaped enslaved people, significantly strengthening the legal force of the Fugitive Slave Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Cooley v. Board of Wardens Target entity description: Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
-
A.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
B.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
C.
Barron v. Baltimore
Barron v. Baltimore is an 1833 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government, not the states.
-
D.
Cohens v. Virginia
Cohens v. Virginia is an 1821 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed the Court’s authority to review state criminal proceedings involving federal law, strengthening federal judicial power over the states.
-
E.
Prigg v. Pennsylvania
Prigg v. Pennsylvania was an 1842 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal supremacy over state laws in enforcing the return of escaped enslaved people, significantly strengthening the legal force of the Fugitive Slave Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (43)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Commerce Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ landmark United States Supreme Court case ⓘ |
| hasAreaOfLaw |
admiralty and maritime law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ federalism ⓘ |
| hasCategory |
United States Commerce Clause case law
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases in 1852 ⓘ United States constitutional case law ⓘ |
| hasCityOfOrigin | Philadelphia ⓘ |
| hasConstitutionalProvision |
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
Commerce Clause ⓘ
surface form:
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | 1852 ⓘ |
| hasDoctrine |
Cooley doctrine
ⓘ
selective exclusiveness doctrine ⓘ |
| hasFullName |
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia
|
| hasHolding |
Congress’s power over interstate commerce does not always exclude state regulation
ⓘ
a Pennsylvania law requiring ships to hire a local pilot or pay a fee did not violate the Commerce Clause ⓘ states may regulate certain local aspects of commerce ⓘ subjects of commerce that are local and diverse in nature may be regulated by states until Congress acts ⓘ |
| hasImpact |
became a foundational case in Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence
ⓘ
helped define the boundary between federal and state power under the Commerce Clause ⓘ recognized a category of local matters open to state regulation despite the Commerce Clause ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | United States federal law ⓘ |
| hasLegalIssue |
Dormant Commerce Clause
ⓘ
port pilotage regulation ⓘ scope of the Commerce Clause ⓘ state regulation of commerce ⓘ |
| hasLocationOfOrigin | Pennsylvania ⓘ |
| hasPrinciple | states retain authority over local matters under their police powers unless preempted by Congress ⓘ |
| hasRegulatorySubject |
harbor safety
ⓘ
navigation in ports ⓘ |
| hasRule | where the subject of regulation is local and varies by locality, states may regulate in the absence of conflicting federal law ⓘ |
| hasSignificance |
clarified that not all regulation affecting interstate commerce is exclusively federal
ⓘ
provided an early framework for distinguishing national from local subjects of regulation ⓘ |
| hasSubject |
maritime commerce
ⓘ
pilotage laws ⓘ state police powers ⓘ |
| hasTemporalContext | antebellum period in United States history ⓘ |
| involvesParty |
Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia
ⓘ
Thomas M. Cooley ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Cooley v. Board of Wardens Description of subject: Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Samuel Nelson
this entity surface form:
Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia